Wiles Laundry Co. v. Hahlo
| Decision Date | 19 April 1887 |
| Parties | WILES LAUNDRY CO. v. HAHLO and another. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Blumenstiel & Hirsch, for appellant.
N. Davenport, for respondent.
No controverted question of fact arose upon the trial of this action. Only one witness was examined on the part of the plaintiff, and no testimony was introduced on the part of the defense. The question presented was purely one of law. The action was brought against the sheriff and the defendant Hahlo for having, under an execution in favor of Hahlo against one Hoexter, taken from the possession of the plaintiff a quantity of collars and cuffs which had been delivered to the plaintiff by Hoexter for the purpose of being laundered, and upon which the plaintiff claimed to have a lien to the amount of $1,747.72, being the general balance due the plaintiff for laundering the collars and cuffs so taken from it by the sheriff, and also for laundering other collars and cuffs which had been received by it from Hoexter, and returned to him before the levy in question. The only question at issue is whether the plaintiff had the lien which it claimed.
The uncontroverted facts were as follows: Hoexter was a manufacturer of collars and cuffs, and the plaintiff carried on the business of laundering for manufacturers. In June, 1884, Hoexter, through his representative, Mr. Kupfer, stated to the agent of the plaintiff that he was about manufacturing a superior line of goods, on which he desired to have the laundry work of the plaintiff, and asked the plaintiff's agent whether the plaintiff could take the job, and the agent replied that the plaintiff could. An agreement was thereupon entered into verbally between them that the plaintiff should do the laundry work on all collars and cuffs Hoexter should deliver to the plaintiff, at the price of 16 1/2 cents per dozen, payable in cash as follows: That on the first of each month the plaintiff should render a bill for all goods laundered and returned to Hoexter during the preceding month, and should receive payment in cash; that cash was not to be paid at the time the goods were actually delivered to Hoexter, but cash on the first of each month for goods returned the previous month; that there was no fixed period during which the goods were to be delivered to be laundered, but only until notice by either party; that the plaintiff might at any time refuse to do any more goods, and Hoexter might refuse to deliver any fresh goods if he chose; and, whenever Hoexter should desire a general settlement and clearing out of the goods, he should shut down for 10 days, and not send any more work, and give the plaintiff a chance to get everything out of the laundry. It usually took seven or eight days to complete the process of laundering the goods. Under this agreement Hoexter began sending goods to the plaintiff's laundry about the eighteenth of June, 1884, and the business continued until the sixth of April, 1885, when it was discontinued on account of the failure of Hoexter.
The work done by the plaintiff during the continuance of the contract amounted to between six and seven thousand dollars. In the course of the business, goods were generally delivered at the laundry, and laundered goods returned, every day. The stipulated monthly payments were at first made by sight drafts drawn by Kupfer on Hoexter. This continued until January, 1885, when a sight draft was given for the December account. After January the defendant received 10-day drafts for the work of the preceding month down to the close. On the third of April, 1885, the plaintiff received for the March account a 10-day draft drawn by Kupfer on Hoexter for the sum of $1,132.41. Hoexter refused to accept this draft, and it was returned protested, and was never paid, and on the sixth of April, 1885, there was a balance unpaid to the plaintiff for work, including this protested draft, of $1,747.72, and the plaintiff had on hand between 2,400 and 2,500 dozen cuffs and collars of Hoexter, which were taken by the sheriff on the execution against Hoexter on the twenty-fifth of April, 1885, against the protest of the plaintiff's agent, who claimed a lien thereon for the above-mentioned balance of $1,747.72 due plaintiff. It was admitted on the trial that the value of the goods taken was equal, at least, to the plaintiff's claim of $1,747.72, and it was also admitted by the plaintiff's counsel that, when the defendants took the goods, they tendered the amount due for the work done upon the particular goods which are the subject of this action.
At the close of the testimony the defendants' counsel moved for a nonsuit, on the ground that it appeared that there was no lien on the goods, and also on the ground that there was no lien upon the goods taken for work done on other goods which had already been delivered. The court denied the motion, and, no evidence being offered on the part of the defense, the plaintiff's counsel asked the court to direct the jury to render a verdict for the plaintiff for the full amount. The court stated that it had great doubt as to the existence of any lien at all, but that the case was important enough to go to the general term, and accordingly directed a verdict. To these rulings exceptions were duly taken. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and on appeal to the general term the judgment was affirmed.
If, under the agreement between the plaintiff and Hoexter, the plaintiff acquired any lien upon the goods laundered, we think that this lien attached to any goods which the plaintiff had in its possession at the close of thedealings, and to the extent of the whole balance then due to the plaintiff for work done, as well upon the particular goods remaining in the plaintiff's possession as upon those which it had previously returned to Hoexter. All the work was done under a single contract, and the lien attached to all goods delivered to the plaintiff under that contract. By returning a portion of those goods to Hoexter, the plaintiff waived only its lien upon the goods so returned, retaining it for its full amount upon the residue which remained in its possession. This consequence results from the entirety of the contract under which the goods were delivered to the plaintiff to be laundered. If each lot of goods had been delivered to the plaintiff under a separate contract, it would have acquired only a lien upon the particular lot of goods so delivered, and only for the work done on that...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Toys of the World Club, Inc., 186
...of the goods does not eliminate the artisan's privilege of holding the balance for work done in the past, Wiles Laundering Co. v. Hahlo, 1887, 105 N.Y. 234, 239, 11 N. E. 500, 502; International Electronics Co. v. N. S. T. Metal Products Co., 1952, 370 Pa. 213, 88 A.2d 40; American Law Inst......
-
Stone v. Allied Clothing Cor. Poration
...of the finished suits before payment could become due. The contract governs and deprives Allied of the lien. Wiles Laundry Co. v. Hahlo, 105 N.Y. 234, 11 N.E. 500, 59 Am.Rep. 496; In re Heinsheimer, 214 N.Y. 361, 108 N.E. 636, Ann.Cas.1916E, Cas.1916E, 384; Clark Bros. & Co. v. Pou, 4 Cir.,......
-
In re Ash Handkerchief Corp.
...608, 609 (S.D.N.Y.1910) (L. Hand, D.J.); In re Mark S. Kaplan, Inc., 42 B.R. 288, 290 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1984); Wiles Laundry Co. v. Hahlo, 105 N.Y. 234, 239, 11 N.E. 500, 502 (1887); Morgan v. Congdon, 4 N.Y. at 554; RESTATEMENT § 61, cmt. f ("Where the privilege exists of retaining several c......
-
In re Stevcoknit, Inc.
...on the credit of the thing itself, but solely on the credit of the owner, there is a waiver of the lien."); Wiles Laundry Company v. Hahlo, 105 N.Y. 234, 242, 11 N.E. 500 (1887). See also Welcome Home Center, Inc. v. Central Chevrolet Co., Inc., 272 S.C. 166, 249 S.E.2d 896 (1978). Thus, th......